Netanyahu says Israel won’t withdraw from Gaza until Hamas is fully disarmed

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on August 4 that Israeli forces would not withdraw from their current positions in Gaza until Hamas was completely disarmed, setting out a condition that conflicts with the sequencing described in a U.S.-backed framework for ending the war. Netanyahu’s statement came after U.S. President Donald Trump announced an agreement in which Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza would be disarmed under a plan involving mediators and a proposed Israeli pullback. Israeli strikes in Gaza have continued since that announcement, and Palestinian officials say the ceasefire’s second phase exists only on paper. Fighting has also spread pressure to the northern front, where Israel struck southern Lebanon after two Israeli soldiers were killed in an explosion. ### What exactly did Netanyahu rule out? Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel would not leave its “current lines” in Gaza before Hamas had fully disarmed, according to reports of his August 4 remarks. That position rejects the idea of an initial Israeli withdrawal happening in parallel with the start of Hamas disarmament. PBS and ABC, citing Associated Press reporting and Netanyahu’s statement, said the prime minister’s condition directly contradicted the sequence described in the emerging arrangement. (abc.net.au) Times of Israel reported that Netanyahu also said Israel had not agreed to the terms as presented and had submitted amendments. ### What was the U.S.-backed framework supposed to do? (abc.net.au) Donald Trump said last week that his “Board of Peace” had reached an agreement on the complete disarmament of Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza. Reports on the proposal said Hamas would begin disarming while Israel halted strikes and withdrew from roughly 60% of the territory it controlled in Gaza. (pbs.org) Times of Israel published what it said was the full text of the plan, and Al Jazeera’s account said the arrangement required Israel to withdraw from Gaza as part of the process. The dispute is over sequence: whether Israeli forces pull back as disarmament begins, or only after Hamas is fully disarmed. That last point is an inference from the competing public descriptions of the plan and Netanyahu’s statement. (timesofisrael.com) ### Why are officials saying the second phase is “only on paper”? The Palestinian Authority said on August 5 that the agreement to implement the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire remained “only on paper” because Israeli military operations were continuing. Egypt Today, citing WAFA and remarks by presidential spokesperson Nabil Abu Rudeineh, said the announcement had not produced a comprehensive halt to the offensive or protection for Palestinians. (timesofisrael.com) Recent reporting has also described continued Israeli strikes after the disarmament announcement. That continued military activity has fueled doubts about whether the proposed arrangement can move from announcement to implementation. ### How does southern Lebanon fit into this story? The Israeli military said two soldiers were killed in combat in southern Lebanon, the first Israeli deaths there since a June truce with Hezbollah, according to the Associated Press. (egypttoday.com) Israel then carried out strikes in southern Lebanon, adding another active front as Gaza negotiations remained unsettled. (aljazeera.com) The New York Times reported that Israeli and Lebanese negotiators were holding talks in Rome aimed at a longer-term settlement even as the strikes took place. That overlap has underscored how Gaza diplomacy is unfolding alongside separate but connected military and diplomatic pressure points in the region. ### What happens next? Rome talks and mediator contacts remain the next visible venues for any attempt to narrow the gap between Israel’s stated condition and the framework announced by Trump. (apnews.com) Netanyahu’s public position, Hamas’s reported acceptance of a disarmament track, and the Palestinian Authority’s assertion that phase two has not been implemented leave the process dependent on whether the parties can agree on sequencing and enforcement. (nytimes.com) August 5 and August 6 reporting showed no sign of that dispute being resolved. The next concrete test is whether mediators can produce terms that Israel publicly accepts and whether fighting in Gaza and southern Lebanon subsides enough for those terms to take effect. (nytimes.com) (timesofisrael.com)